Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1326 (HP)

Parminder Singh v. State of H. P.

2019-09-06

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff is aggrieved, by, rejection of his plaint, hence by the learned trial Court, through its, recoursing, the, mandate, under, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He submits that the learned trial Judge concerned, has not, both understood, the, subtle import thereof nor also aptly applied, vis-a-vis, the averments, cast, in, the plaint, the apt mandate, of, clause (c), of, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, provisions whereof, are, extracted hereinafter:- "where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so" (i) ,and, he further there onwards also submits, that, the learned trial judge, has, fallaciously, made the impugned order, upon, an untenable anvil qua (ii given the plaintiff, despite earlier, hence being granted, several opportunities, for affixing court fee, on the plaint, carrying advalorem valuation, vis-a-vis, the valuation of the suit, hence, for the purpose of jurisdiction, yet, his failing to render compliance therewith, (ii) as, apparently he has not made an apt deference, vis-a-vis, the hereinafter alluded verdict. 2. The pronouncement made by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a judgment rendered in case titled Saleem vs. Usman Gani & another, reported in 2015 (3) RCR (Civil), relevant paragraph No.3, whereof is extracted hereinafter:- "In Shiv Kumar Sharma vs. Santosh Kumari, (2007) 4 CivCC 333 : 2007 (40 R.R.C. (Civil) 515 : 2007 (5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 321 (SC), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that though court fees is payable on claim of damages but in a case where damages are required to be calculated, a fixed court fee is to be paid and balance court fees is payable only on the quantum, when the same is determined by the court. Reliance may be placed on Hem Raj vs. Harchet Singh and others, 1993 CivCC 48 (P & H), wherein it was held that the court has no other alternative but to accept the plaintiff's tentative court fees till the matter is finally decided by the court. Reliance may be placed on Hem Raj vs. Harchet Singh and others, 1993 CivCC 48 (P & H), wherein it was held that the court has no other alternative but to accept the plaintiff's tentative court fees till the matter is finally decided by the court. To the same effect State of Punjab & others vs. Jagdip Singh Chowhan, (2005) 1 RCR(Civ) 54: 2005 (2) Civil Court Cases 37 (H&H)." (i) makes clear expostulations qua in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, filing of the plaint or within the tenure, of, the requisite extension being granted, it, being imperative for the plaintiff, to, fix court fees advalorem, vis-a-vis, valuation of the suit, for the purpose of jurisdiction, and, wants thereof entailing rejection of the plaint, (ii) however, a further expostulation, is, also carried therein qua the afore necessity being sparked, only upon, when in a suit for damages, the monetary sums of damages are settled, and, are precisely averred, and, (iii) the afore imperative necessity, being dispensable, upon, the amount(s) of damage(s) remaining unascertained or remaining unsettled in the plaint, (iv) and, obviously, upon the latter event, court fees hence bearing commensuration, with, the subsequently determined values of sums of monies, hence claimed as damages, rather, being enjoined, to, in contemporaneity therewith, hence affixed on the plaint, for, hence, the, learned Civil Court, rendering an efficacious enforceable decree. 3. However, prima facie in making the afore order, the learned trial Judge concerned, prima facie, appears to discard the merits of the verdict, pronounced, in the afore verdict, (i) and, also prima facie appears, to, not apply, its, expostulations, inter-se, the, similar therein averments cast, in, the plaint thereof, vis-a-vis, the extant plaint., (ii) conspicuously, with, the averments, cast in para 9 of the plaint, when do carry absolute compatibility, vis-a-vis, the averments borne, in, the plaint, alluded, in, the relevant para, of, verdict supra, and when, in, concurrence therewith, the, learned trial Judge, was, not empowered, to, suo moto, and, for afore wants hence reject, the, plant. Consequently, the impugned verdict is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 27.9.2019. 4. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and, the learned Court concerned, shall decide the matter uninfluenced, by any observation made hereinabove. Consequently, the impugned verdict is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 27.9.2019. 4. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and, the learned Court concerned, shall decide the matter uninfluenced, by any observation made hereinabove. JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff is aggrieved, by, rejection of his plaint, hence by the learned trial Court, through its, recoursing, the, mandate, under, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He submits that the learned trial Judge concerned, has not, both understood, the, subtle import thereof nor also aptly applied, vis-a-vis, the averments, cast, in, the plaint, the apt mandate, of, clause (c), of, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, provisions whereof, are, extracted hereinafter:- "where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so" (i) ,and, he further there onwards also submits, that, the learned trial judge, has, fallaciously, made the impugned order, upon, an untenable anvil qua (ii given the plaintiff, despite earlier, hence being granted, several opportunities, for affixing court fee, on the plaint, carrying advalorem valuation, vis-a-vis, the valuation of the suit, hence, for the purpose of jurisdiction, yet, his failing to render compliance therewith, (ii) as, apparently he has not made an apt deference, vis-a-vis, the hereinafter alluded verdict. 2. The pronouncement made by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a judgment rendered in case titled Saleem vs. Usman Gani & another, reported in 2015 (3) RCR (Civil), relevant paragraph No.3, whereof is extracted hereinafter:- "In Shiv Kumar Sharma vs. Santosh Kumari, (2007) 4 CivCC 333 : 2007 (40 R.R.C. (Civil) 515 : 2007 (5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 321 (SC), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that though court fees is payable on claim of damages but in a case where damages are required to be calculated, a fixed court fee is to be paid and balance court fees is payable only on the quantum, when the same is determined by the court. Reliance may be placed on Hem Raj vs. Harchet Singh and others, 1993 CivCC 48 (P & H), wherein it was held that the court has no other alternative but to accept the plaintiff's tentative court fees till the matter is finally decided by the court. To the same effect State of Punjab & others vs. Jagdip Singh Chowhan, (2005) 1 RCR(Civ) 54: 2005 (2) Civil Court Cases 37 (H&H)." (i) makes clear expostulations qua in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, filing of the plaint or within the tenure, of, the requisite extension being granted, it, being imperative for the plaintiff, to, fix court fees advalorem, vis-a-vis, valuation of the suit, for the purpose of jurisdiction, and, wants thereof entailing rejection of the plaint, (ii) however, a further expostulation, is, also carried therein qua the afore necessity being sparked, only upon, when in a suit for damages, the monetary sums of damages are settled, and, are precisely averred, and, (iii) the afore imperative necessity, being dispensable, upon, the amount(s) of damage(s) remaining unascertained or remaining unsettled in the plaint, (iv) and, obviously, upon the latter event, court fees hence bearing commensuration, with, the subsequently determined values of sums of monies, hence claimed as damages, rather, being enjoined, to, in contemporaneity therewith, hence affixed on the plaint, for, hence, the, learned Civil Court, rendering an efficacious enforceable decree. 3. However, prima facie in making the afore order, the learned trial Judge concerned, prima facie, appears to discard the merits of the verdict, pronounced, in the afore verdict, (i) and, also prima facie appears, to, not apply, its, expostulations, inter-se, the, similar therein averments cast, in, the plaint thereof, vis-a-vis, the extant plaint., (ii) conspicuously, with, the averments, cast in para 9 of the plaint, when do carry absolute compatibility, vis-a-vis, the averments borne, in, the plaint, alluded, in, the relevant para, of, verdict supra, and when, in, concurrence therewith, the, learned trial Judge, was, not empowered, to, suo moto, and, for afore wants hence reject, the, plant. Consequently, the impugned verdict is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 27.9.2019. 4. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and, the learned Court concerned, shall decide the matter uninfluenced, by any observation made hereinabove.